Volume 3 — Connecticut Reports

THE plaintiffs were thus described: “Amos Beecher, and •the rest of the inhabitants of the town of Barkhamsted.” They brought their action on a certain statute law of this state, entitled “An act for the admission of inhabitants in towns, and for preventing charge on account of such as are not admitted therein.,” declaring, “that by the said statute, it is among other things, enacted, that any person who shall bring into this state any poor and indigent person, and leave him…

THIS was an action on the case against the defendants, as owners of the sloop Mary, for the loss, by negligent management and ca'reless stowage, of eight hogsheads of gin, shipped on hoard that vessel at Hartford, to be transported thence to Boston. The cause was tried at Hartford, February term, 1819, before Hosmer and Peters, Js.

AT the session of the General Assembly, in May, 1810, the plaintiffs were incorporated, with the usual powers of a body politic, including the power to purchase and hold “ bank stock of any bank within the United States.” The second section of the charter provided, that the capital stock of the company should be 150,000 dollars, to be divided into shares of 50 dollars each, of which ten per cení, should be paid within sixty days, and the residue secured by mortgage of real…

THIS was a scire-facias, in a process of foreign attachment, tried at Hartford, February term, 1819, before Trumbull, Hosmer, and Peters, Js. The absconding debtor, was Green Bixby.

THIS was an appeal from a decree of the court of probate for the district of New-Milford, allowing to Henry A. Straight, the appellee, a full distributary share of the estate of Henry Straight, deceased. The cause was tried at Litchfield, February term, 1819, before Edmond, Smith and Gould, Js. The appellants were children, and heirs at law, of said Henry Straight. The appellee was his son.

THIS was an action of trespass quart clausum fregit, brought by the plaintiffs, as agents of the first society of Durham ; and tried in Middlesex county, December term, 1818, before Trum-hull, Hosmer and Peters, Js. Qn {|le trial, the defendants admitted the acts complained of; but rested their defénce on the following grounds: 1.

THIS was a scire facias against the individual members of the Middletown Manufacturing Company, on a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, against that company, in its corporate capacity.

THIS was an action on a promissory note in these words: “ Berlin, March 9, 1816. Twelve months from date, I promise to pay Hez elciah Brooks, two hundred and fifty dollars, in hrown cotton shirting, at the price of thirty cents per yard, for every yard in length, and to average three fourths of a yard in width. Lemuel HubbardM The defendant was defaulted, and moved to be heard in damages, which was allowed.

THE original judgment having been reversed, pursuant to the advice of this Court, (2 Conn. Rep. 417. 419.) the cause was entered in the superior court, and tried again, on the general issue, at New-llaxen. January term, 1819, before Trumbull, Hosmer and Peters, Js.

THE plaintiffs declared, that they were the sole owners of the sloop Mary ; and on the 13th of March, 1815, said sloop, with a valuable cargo on board, was proceeding lawfully through Long-Island sound, under the direction of the plaintiffs, to New-York; and the defendant was, at the same time, sole owner of the sloop Susan, which was proceeding through Long-Island sound to Mew-Haven, under the defendant’s direction ; yet the defendant, not regarding his duty in that behalf,…

THE plaintiffs, as late merchants in company, under the firm of Bulkley, Someryndike & Co., brought an action of as-sumpsit against the defendants, as surviving partners of the late firm of Smith, Taylor & Co., consisting of the defendants and David Taylor, deceased, to recover the balance of a sum of money, which the plaintiffs had been compelled to pay in consequence of their having endorsed several promissory notes, at the request, and for the benefit of Smith, Taylor &…

THIS was an action for trespass, assault and battery, and for false imprisonment, tried at New-Haven, January term,. 1819, before Trumbull, Hosmer and Peters, Js. Isaac Upson had obtained a judgment and execution, in an action on a promissory note, before a court of competent jurisdiction in the state oi New-York, against the plaintiff and one Byington. This judgment had never been satisfied nor reversed; nor had any ca. sa. issued thereon.

IN ERROK. AT the the term of the superior court for New-Haven county, in January, 1819, Fowler and his wife made a written application to the court, stating, that by the consideration of said court, at their term in.

THIS was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, complaining of injuries to a lot of land in Middletown, belonging to the plaintiff, and in his peaceable possession.

THIS was an action against the defendant, as drawer of a bill of exchange, dated Alexandria, (D. C.) May 21st, 131G, drawn on Osborn The cause was tried at'Fairfield, December term, 1818, before Edmond, Smith and Gould, Js. In the course of the trial, the defendant offered the deposition of Osborn, one of the acceptors, to prove the following facts. The defendant was the master, and part owner, of a coasting vessel.

A new trial having been granted in this cause, (2 Conn. Rep. 467. 473.) the parties were heard again, before the superior court, in Fairfield county, December term, 1818.

THIS was an information against Stephen Danforth, charging him with having made, on the 30th of October, 1818, with force and arms, an assault upon the body of David Butler, of Mew-Haven, keeper of Mew-Haven county gaol, who had entered the apartment of the gaol in which the prisoner was confined, for the purpose of examining the condition of the gaol; “ when and where the said Stephen, with intent to maim and kill the said Butler, with the like force and arms, did make a…

THIS was an action on a promissory note against Gad Peck and Egbert D. Peck, described as merchants in company, under the firm of Egbert D. Peck. The note was in these words: “ Mew-Haven, October 22nd, 1817. On demand, I promise to pay Mr. Gad Peck, or order, eleven hundred and fifteen dollars and fifty-two cents, value received, with interest. [Signed.] Egbert D. Peck.’’ It was endorsed, “ Gad Peck.” Egbert D. Peck suffered a default ; and Gad Peck pleaded non assumpsit.

THIS was an action of debt on book, commenced March 13th, 1815. The accounts were referred to auditors for adjustment ; who reported a balance in favour of the plaintiffs of 2102 dollars, 67 cents.

THIS was a bill in chancery, brought originally to the superior court, for discovery and relief. The bill stated the following case. The Middletown Manufacturing Company was formed, and commenced business, by that name, in the year 1812. Soon afterwards, the company became indebted to the plaintiffs, on notes made by Arthur W. Magill, its agent, payable to Alexander Wolcott and other persons, or order, and by them indorsed, amounting to about 10,000 dollars.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought by J. Wright, ,/. Kelsey, and A. Kelsey, to recover of the defendant his proportion of certain sums of money disbursed by them.

IN ERROR. THIS was a bill in chancery, brought originally to the county court in Middlesex county, praying for a foreclosure ot mortgaged premises.

THIS was an action of ejectment, tried at New-London. January term, 1819, before Swift, Ch. J. and Brainard and Chapman, Js. On the 6th of August, 1817, the plaintiff prayed out a writ of attachment against William Hall and Robbins, of the city of New-York, describing them as merchants in company? under the firm of Hall Robbins, on which the land demanded was attached as the property of Hall.

THIS was an action of trespass, for taking and carrying away certain cattle from the plaintiffs possession. The cause was tried at New-London, January term, 1819, before Swift. Ch. J. and Brainard and Chapman, Js. The plaintiff, being a creditor of William Hempstead, who was insolvent, on the 25th of December, 1817, caused the property described in the declaration to be attached, by a writ in his, the plaintiff’s name, against said Hempstead.

THIS was a bill in chancery, stating the following case. On the 13th of April, 1808, Samuel Gilbert made his will, which, after ordering large specific legacies to be paid within certain times after his decease, contained, among others, the following provisions : “ My just debts and funeral charges being first paid, 1 order all my private obligations, not otherwise disposed of, to be placed in the hands of my son Payton Randolph ; and likewise, that he shall receive the…

Where property, claimed by A., being libelled in the admiralty court as prize, was delivered to B., to indemnify him for bonds given by him in that… Held: that the plaintiff, notwithstanding such want of notice, was entitled to recover. THIS was a scire-facias, in a process of foreign attachment, against the defendant, as the trustee and debtor of John B. El-,hers. A copy of the writ in the original suit was left in service with the defendant, on the lOtRof November, 1815.

THIS was an information for horse-stealing. There were three counts, in each of which the horse in question was averred to be the property of Nathaniel Arnold, of Coventry, in the county of Kent, in the state of Rhode-Island ; and in one, the taking was alleged to have been in Plainjield, in another, in Windham, and in the third, in Mansjield, in the county of fVindham, in this state.

THIS was an action of ejectment for one undivided seventh part of a piece of land in Sterling. The ouster was laid on the 30th of October, 1782. The plaintiff’s action was commenced on the 30th of July, 1817, The cause was tried at Windham, January term, 1819, before Swift, Ch. J. and Brainard and Chapman, Js.

In an action against Timothy Canfield, lchabod Curtiss, Aaron Hosmer, Eli Ensign, Samuel Sherman and Solomon Vol-kenburg, the plaintiff declared as follows : “ That on the 5th day of June, 1818, the defendants were, and for a long time before, had been, and ever since have continued to be, joint partners in the business of running a line of stages from Hartford to Albany, for the purpose of conveying passengers, with their baggage and other things, from said Hartford to said…

This was a bill in chancery, brought by the corporation of The Central Manufacturing Company, against the stockholders, stating certain losses and embarrassments, in consequence of which it became necessary, that the debts due from the company should be provided for, and the concerns of the stockholders settled among themselves ; some of the stockholders having advanced large sums of money, and performed services, for the company, while others were indebted to the company;…

This was an action of assumpsit for the use and occupa* tion of a tract of land in Mansfield, known by the name of the Apthorp farm.

This was an action of assumpsit for the support of Ruth Hutchinson, a pauper, founded on the following agreement: “ At a meeting of the select-men of Hebron and Marlborough, at the dwelling-house of Elisha Buell in said Marlborough, for the purpose of dividing the poor of the town of Hebron, according to an act of the general assembly of October session, 1803, we, the subscribers, have made the following agreement, viz. That the town of Marlborough shall support Moses…

IN ERROR. This was a bill in chancery to redeem mortgaged premiseSj brought originally to the superior^court. The plaintiff, on the 4th of January, 181.5, being indebted to the congregational society in Willington, gave his note to Elijah Holt, their treasurer, for the sum of 50 dollars, payable on demand, with interest, and mortgaged three pieces of land, containing about four and an half acres, of the value of 360 dollars, as security.

This was an action of assault and battery. In one of the counts, the injury complained of was alleged to have been committed by Orrin Kibbe, under the stimulation, and with the assistance of the defendant. In bar of this action the defendant pleaded a former recoye-ry, by the plaintiff, against Orrin Kibbe, for the same trespass.

This was an action of ejectment, brought in March 1818, for land in Windsor, being part of the real estate that belonged to Mercy Wéller, deceased. Held: as guardians to those heirs, who were minors.

A new trial having been granted, pursuant to the decision ante 27. 30. this cause was again tried, at Hartford, September term, 1819, before Brainard, J. To prove the fraudulent combination, claimed by the plaintiff, between Green Bixby and Julius Bixby, the plaintiff offered in evidence the admissions of Green Bixby, made at a time subsequent to the execution of the note in question, and the transfer of it to Guernsey, that it was given by the defendant for certain horses,…

The plaintiff declared upon a promissory note, made by the defendant, at ¡Niagara, in the British province of Upper Canada, dated the 10th oí July, 1818, and then and there delivered to the plaintiff, in and by which the defendant promised the plaintiff, for value then and there received, to pay to him, or order, the sum of 402 dollars, 72 cents, on demand, with interest.

IN ERROR. The plaintiff declared, that he, being a constable of the town of Norfolk, had in his hands, on the 26th of March, 1814, an execution in favour of Eraslus Ives against Hezekiah Turner, for collection; that on the same day, he levied this execution on certain goods, the property of Turner, of the value of 100 dollars, took them into, his possession, and posted them to be sold at the public sign-post at the end of twenty days; and that afterwards, on the same day, he…

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the executors of Dorcas Phelps, deceased, against the surviving partner of the firm of Riley & Luddington, on a promissory note.

This was an action of trespass for taking and carrying away divers goods and chattels, the property of the plaintiffs, and in their possession. The cause was tried at Litchfield, February term, 1820, before Ch. J. Hosmer.

This was a scire-f 'acias, in a process of foreign attachment, against the defendant, as the trustee and debtor of John Me Lean. A copy of the writ in the original suit was left in service with the defendant, on the 7th of February, 1818. The cause was tried at Danbury, September term 1819, before Ch. J. Hosmer. Some years ago, McLean, the absconding debtor, being in the state of Ohio, bought a horse of one Samuel Ditty, for 'which he gave his note for 80 dollars.

This was an action on the case for an obstruction, by the erection of a mill-dam, and causing the water to flow back against the wheel of the plaintiff’s mill.

This was an action on a bond, executed to the plaintiff, as judge of probate, by Darius Mead, administrator of the es-estate of Eliphalet Mead, deceased, and Gilbert Close, his surety. The action was commenced on the 30th of March 1819. The defendants, having prayed oyer of the condition, which was in the form prescribed by statute, requiring a true and perfect inventory to be made and exhibited within two months, pleaded performance generally.

This was an action of assumpsit, founded on the following writing: “ Norwalk, December 29th, 1809.

This was an action of ejectment, for one undivided third yiart of sundry parcels of land in Stamford, tried at Fairfield, December term, 1819, before Bristol, J. Peter Brown, the plaintiff’s father, died seised of the demanded premises; to one third part of which she, as his heir at law, was entitled, unless they were conveyed by him to the defendant, by a deed executed in his last sickness. Whether that deed was valid or void, was the only question oh the trial.

This was an action on a promissory note, dated the 21st of July,1814. The defendants pleaded in bar a discharge under the insolvent law of Kew-York, passed Mprii 12th, 1813.

IN ERROR. This was an action on the casé, complaining of an injury done to the plaintiff, by the defendant’s dog accustomed to bite, brought to the county court, November term, 1818, and continued to February term, 1819. At the latter term, the cause, by mutual agreement of the parties, was referred to referees, pursuant to the statute, (a) Each of the parties chose one of the referees, and the court appointed a third ; of which the clerk made an entry in his records.

This was an action on a bail-bond, conditioned for the appearance of one Isaac Gunn, in a civil action. The cause was tried at New-Haven, August term, 1819, before Chapman, J. After judgment against the principal, an execution, issued thereon, was put into the hands of Ebenezer Fowler, a deputy of the sheriff of New-Haven county, which would expire on the 29th June, 1818.

This was an action qui tam, founded on the statute against fraudulent conveyances, to recover certain forfeitures for a violation of that statute.

This was an action for a libel, tried at New-Haven, January terra, 1820, before Peters, J. The declaration was as follows: That for more than five years previous to the 30th day of April, 1819, the… Held: that evidence of good character is admissible in actions of tort, to repel the charge. Rúan v. Perry, 3 Caines' Rep. 120. 123. 6.

This was a bill in chancery, brought by Edmund R. Fowler against Reuben R, Fowler, children and heirs at law of Caleb Fowler, deceased.

This was a bjll in chancery, praying for an account. The bill stated, that on the 26th of March, 1814, Isaac Townsend, the plaintiff, Hezekiah Auger, jun., the defendant, and Eldad Atwater, entered into copartnership, in the purchase and vending of merchandize, under the firm of Auger, Atwater & Co. with a capital stock of 6500 dollars; that the business was continued under that firm, until the 9th of January, 1815, when it was, by mutual consent, dissolved, Atwater…

This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, tried at New-Haven, January term, 1820, before Peters, J. The note was given to secure the premium on a policy of insurance on certain stock, owned by the defendants, on the deck of the brig Gleaner, from Saybrook to the West-Indies.

IN ERROR. This was an action of assumpsit,brought by Ives against Andrews.

THIS was an action of debt on book, commenced on the 18th of March, 1818. It came on for trial in Middlesex county, December term, 1819, before Hosmer, Ch. J. The plaintiffs’ account, consisting of sundry charges for goods sold and delivered, by their testator, was proved, by the clerk, by whom the entries were made.

THIS was an action on the case, complaining of an injury, in consequence of the defendants’ raising and maintaining a certain mill-dam above its ordinary height, and thereby causing the water to overflow a piece of adjoining grass-land, belonging to the plaintiff, and in her possession.

THIS was an action of indebitatus assumpsit, for money had and received, commenced July 20th, 1819.

THIS was an action of debt, on a probate bond, executed by the defendant, as administrator of the estate of Lydia Williams, deceased, brought in March, 1819. The defendant, after oyer of the condition of the bond, pleaded that he had fully administered.

THIS was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, brought in 1818, and tried in New-Lonaon county, January term, 1820, before Brainard, J. The… Held: that if the statute has once begun to run against the person to whom the right or title first accrued, a subsequent disability in his heir, will not arrest its progress. Stowell v. Lord Zouch, 1 Plowd. 356. Doe d. Du-roure v. Jones, 4 Tenn Rep. 300. Cotterell v. Dutton, 4 Taun. ^ 830. Bunce v. Wolcott, 2 Conn. Rep. 27.

THIS was an action of ejectment. On the trial, the plaintiffclaimed title to the demanded premises, by virtue of the levy of an execution, in his favour, against Thomas Stewart and Shapley Morgan. The officer’s return of his proceedings, so far as it is material in this case, is as follows: “ New-London county, Aprils, 1816.

IN ERROR. THIS was an action on the case, brought by Raymond against Otis.

THIS was an action of debt on book, in which, during its pendency in the county court, viz. in March, 1820, Ephraim M. Frink had become special bail of the defendant. On the second day of the first term of the superior court, after the appeal of the cause, Frink came into court, and moved his discharge as bail, and that an exoneretur should be entered of record.

THIS was an action on the case, against the defendant, as sheriff of the county of New-London, for the escape of Payton R. Randall, an imprisoned debtor, committed on an execution in… Held: that the recovery is to be restricted to the damages actually sustained. Staphorse v. County of New-Haven, 1 Root 126. Williams v. County of Rew-Haven, 2 Root 23. Damages beyond those actually sustained, are in the nature of a penalty ; but the common law inflicts no penalty in this case.

IN ERROR. THIS was an action on a bond, executed by Williams and others, to Joshua Huntington, Esq. sheriff of the county of New-London, the condition of which, after reciting, that Pay-ton R. Randall, one of the obligors, was then confined and held a lawful prisoner in the gaol at New-London, by virtue of an execution in favour of William Bowen and others, for the sum of 1023 dollars, 28 cents, and that the plaintiff had agreed to suffer him to walk and take the air within…

A new trial having been granted, pursuant to the decision of this Court, ante 160. 165. the cause was again tried in New-London county, September term, 1820, before Chapman, J. On the 24th of December, 1817, the plaintiff prayed out a lawful writ of attachment against William Hempstead, which, the next day, he put into the hands of Stephen Haley, then a constable of the town of Groton, with directions to serve it, and to return it to the county court, then next to be holden…

THIS was an action of assumpsit, containing seven counts. The first count, was as follows : “ That the defendant, on the 9th of September, 1817, in consideration that the plaintiffs would, at the special instance and request of the defendant, sell and deliver to one Roswell Bailey, goods in the city of New-York, to an amount not exceeding 500 dollars, promised the plaintiffs in writing, that he the defendant would be answerable for the money, that is, the price to be paid…

THIS was an action on a promissory note, with a condition annexed, commenced in February, 1819.

THIS was an action of ejectment, tried, on the general issue, at Windham, January term, 1820, before Brainard, J. The plaintiffs claimed title as heirs of their father, Asa Kim-hall, deceased.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, containing three counts. Held: that evidence of the defendant’s having received a horse, under certain special circumstances, for the plaintiff’s use, maintained the action ; “ for though the defendant did not actually receive the money, yet he received a satisfaction, which was money’s worth.” The cases of Barclay v. Gooch, 2 Esp. Rep. 571.

THIS was an action of slander; which was tried on the general issue. The plaintiff, being post-master of the post-office in Lebanon, Samuel Bailey, a brother of his, put into such post-office, a letter directed to Jonathan Little, Esq. of New-York, in which was enclosed a treasury note, for 1000 dollars.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, to recover of the defendants, as heirs of William Williams, Esq. late of Groton, deceased, the sum of 205 dollars, 56 cents, for necessary supplies furnished to Adam, a negro slave of said William Williams, Esq. The declaration stated, “ That in the town of Columbia, on the 6th of July, 1817, one Adam, a negro slave of William Williams, Esq. late of Groton, deceased, by the providence of God, became sick and unable to take care of himself,…

THIS was an action of assumpsit, founded on a promissory note, made and delivered, by the defendant, in the state of Nezu-York, where both the parties at that time resided. The plaintiff-, shortly afterwards, removed into this state ; and on the defendant’s coming into this state, in December, 1818, this action was commenced, and made returnable to the county court of Windham county.

<p>Where A. brought an action against B., an inhabitant of this state, and C., an inhabitant of another state, co-partners, on a promissory note, executed by them, in the partnership name ; process was served on B. only ; and A. took judgment, by default, at the first term ; it was held, that such judgment was not erroneous, the service on B. alone, being sufficient to maintain the suit.</p>

IN ERROR. THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought by the town of East-Hartford against the town of Vernon, to recover the sum of 50 dollars, necessarily expended by the plaintiffs, between the 8th of February, 1815, and the 15th of February, 1816, for the suppprt of one Richard H. Huntley, a pauper, who, during that period, resided in East-Hartford, but was, as the plaintiffs alleged, an inhabitant of Vernon.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought on a writing signed by the defendant, in these words: “ I promise to account with William Moore, for 363 dollars, 83 cents, with interest, or secure debts due from him to this amount. June 16, 1819.” The consideration stated for this contract, was, a lease executed by the plaintiff to the defendant, and a policy of insurance procured by the plaintiff, payable to the defendant.

, THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought against the defendants, as the indorsers of a promissory note, made by Will-{am Belcher, dated May 22, 1819, and payable at the Middle-iown bank, four months after date. The cause was tried at Hartford, February term, 1821, be-n , T tore Peters, J. The note in question had been discounted at the Hartford bank, and sent to the Middletown bank for collection. It became payable on Saturday, the 25th day of September, 1819.

IN ÉRROR. THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought by Thrall, a prisoner, who had been committed to the gaol of Hartford county, on execution for debt, had been admitted to the liberties, and had taken the poor debtor’s oath, against Wash-burn, the keeper of such gaol, to recover the sum of 37 dollars, 93 cents, which had been deposited with him, by the creditor, for the -prisoner’s maintenance.

in ERROR. THIS was an action of book-debt, brought by Washburn, who was keeper of the gaol, and master of the work-house, of Hartford county, against Belknap, for the defendant’s board,… Held: to pay for his necessary support, would not be binding : a fortiori no such promise can be im - plied. 3. That the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, because he had not pursued the course prescribed by the statute, to obtain compensation for the support furnished to the defendant.

in error. THIS was an application, made by the select-men of Weth-ersfield, to the county court, stating, that Olive, Montague of that town, having, by reason of age, sickness and other infirmities,… Held: that an order that the grand-father should support the grand-child, and also pay so much money for the time past, while he was chargeable, was good. The Queen v. Joyce, 16 Vin. Abr. 423. pi. 3. S. C. cited 4 Burn’s Just. 496.

IN ERROR. THIS was an action of debt, brought by Joab Griffin,*]ufl. Esq., as judge of the court of probate for the district of Granby, on a bond, executed by Nathaniel Pratt and Sadoce Wilcox, conditioned for the faithful performance, by Pratt, of the duty of an administrator of the estate of his father, Nathaniel Pratt, deceased. The defendants pleaded performance, generally.

THIS was an action, brought by Gad Cowles, as the indor-see of a bill of exchange, drawn on and accepted by Stebhins & Co., and subsequently dishonoured, against Harts, Johnson & Co., as the drawers.

THIS was an an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Goods, to the amount of the plaintiff’s demand, which were his property, were sold, by Dorimus and Wilbur, to the defendants, in September, 1816. A bill of them was given, by jjor¡mus an(j ffUfjur^ jn (heir own names, according to the .custom of factors ; and payment was to have been made to them ; but the defendants were ignorant that they acted as factors in the sale.

THIS was an action of disseisin, tried at Hartford, September term, 1820, before Chapman, J. The plaintiffs claimed title to the demanded premises, by virtue of the levy of an execution, in favour of Anson Coe, against the defendant, issued on a judgment recovered on a promissory note, payable to Coe ; which note had been previ, ously assigned to the plaintiffs, and before the commencement of this suij;, Coe had conveyed to them the premises, by a deed of quit-claim, duly…

THIS was an action on a promissory note, dated at Platts-burgh, the 9th of June, 1815, in and by which, the defendant promised the plaintiff, to pay to him, for value received, the sum of 129 dollars, and 14 cents, on demand.

THIS was au action of trespass vi et armis, tried at Bitch? field, August term, 1820, before Brainatd, J. The defendant admitted, that he had taken the plaintiffs body, and committed him to prison,… Held: that a witness arrested, during his attendance, has no remedy but by habeas corpus to deliver him. See Swift’s Ev. 108. Com. Dig. tit. Privilege. A. 1. Secondly, as to a party to a suit, who also has a common law privilege. In Cameron v. Lightfoot, 2 Bla.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, to recover the amount of four dividends, declared, in the year 1816, by The Newtown and Bridgeport Turnpike Company, on one hundred shares of their stock, of which the plaintiff averred, that he was the. proprietor. / ' ' The cause was tried, on the issue of non-assumpsit, at Fair-field, December term, 1818, before Edmond, Smith, and Gould, Js.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, to recover the sum of 75 dollars, expended by the plaintifls, for the necessary support of Sally Clark, the wife oí Adam S. Clark.

THIS was an action of book-debt, demanding the sum of 450 dollars; which was tried on the general issue, at Danbu-ry, September term, 1819, before Hosmer, Ch. J. On the trial, the plaintiff exhibited… Held: that the agent was not liable, would an action lie against the government. Still there is no reason to apprehend a failure of justice 3 for the public faith, to which the plaintiff gave credit, when he engag- ¡ ed to do the service, is pledged for his remuneration.

THESE were actions of trespass, for entering the dwelling-house of the Rev. Simon Backus at Stratford, and taking, and carrying away himself and wife, and certain articles of household furniture. The causes were tried at Fairfidd, December term, 1820, before Chapman, J. As a justification of the charges made by the plaintiff, the defendants stated, and offered to prove, by competent testimony, the following facts.

This was an appeal from a decree of the court of probate, establishing the will of Peter James, deceased, made in April, 1819. This will was executed and published according to law.

IN ERROR. THIS was a prosecution upon the statute of Bastardy, by Sarah Blanchard, the mother of a bastard child, against Judson.t alleged to be the father, for its maintenance.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, for the support of Lewis Beach, alleged to be a settled inhabitant of the town of Fair-field.

ON the 13th of November, 1804, Mead and Johnson entered into the following articles of agreement: “ That the said Johnson doth agree to sell to the said Mead, the one full undivided moiety, or half… Held: managed, or disposed; of, as they may agree, for the joint benefit of both parties.’ In witness whereof, the parties have hereunto set their hands;; and seals. [Signed] Samuel W. Johnson, \L. S.] Richard Mead. [/..

THIS was an action of assumpsit, to recover the sum of 200 dollars, expended, by the town of Newtown, for the support of James R. Murray, a pauper. John James Murray was a native of the kingdom of Great-Britain; and never gained any settlement in this country.